TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) whereby their refund claim was rejected as time-bar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Inorganic Chemicals and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final product. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of Rs. 18,240/-. Appellants on 12-10-1994 made the entry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. The appellants filed appeal and the same was rejected. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants paid duty twice and in respect of the earlier proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner made a remark that appellants should make a separate request for refund in respect of duty paid through their RG-23A Part II account. He submits that in this situation, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 478 (S.C.) held that the authorities are bound by the period of limitation as provided by the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case admittedly, the duty was paid on 12-10-1994 and refund claim was filed on 8-2-1997. Therefore, the refund claim was beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section ....